Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the arguments pertaining to the “current draw of a storage drive”, fig. 9 clearly shows that the radiation hardened control unit 4c (i.e. storage controller) contains a current value monitoring unit 45 that measures the current supplying power to the NVM 32 of the storage unit 3. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification is used when applied prior art. The claims use broad language, such as “based on a characteristic of the current draw, detecting a latch-up in the storage drive”, which is clearly taught and/or made obvious by the prior art. The same is applied to the claimed terms “after a cooling period has elapsed, reapplying the power to the storage device.” The prior art of Kon clearly shows that the power to the drive can be turned off when a latch-up event is detected (i.e. increased current draw, which through the magic of physics naturally incurs the increased production of heat. The prior art also shows that the power can then later be reapplied (i.e. after a cooling period has elapsed), the claims do not state or required that the cooling period need to be a preset, predetermine, static, or dynamic amount of time before power can be reapplied, as via BRI, as long as power is reapplied at some point, the claim limitation of “after a cooling period as elapsed, reapplying the power” has been satisfactorily taught and/or made obvious by the prior art, as when power is not actively being applied, the system is naturally “cooling” to the ambient temperature as heat is no longer being actively generated by the unpowered storage device.
MPEP in 2141 II. C. and III. states:
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In addition to the factors above, Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and administrative patent judges on the Board are "persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work" and that their findings are "informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary skill in the art." In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 2003, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, examiners "are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art ." PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 86 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1360, 220 USPQ 763, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2141.03 for a discussion of the level of ordinary skill. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.”
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be "so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art." Id. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kon (US 2023/0289257) in view of Halderman (US 2022/0171694).
In regards to claims 1 and 10, taking claim 10 as exemplary Kon teaches
A data storage system for use in a high radiation environment, (fig. 1, abstract, a data recorder (data storage system) capable of reducing the effects caused by radiation (i.e. use in a high radiation environment)
comprising: a storage drive that is not radiation hardened; (fig. 1, storage unit 3)
a [ ] storage controller coupled to the storage drive and configured to: (fig. 1, control unit 4, coupled to storage unit 3)
measuring a current draw of the storage drive; (¶114, fig. 9. Current value monitoring unit 45 monitors the current draw of the storage unit)
based on a characteristic of the current draw, detecting a latch up in the storage drive; (¶114-115 based on current thresholds and storage unit specifications processing is performed to detect latch-up events)
based on the detected latch up, removing power from all or part of the storage drive; (fig. 10, ¶118-125 teaches based on an overcurrent event being detected (i.e. latch-up), the power to the memory device is switched off)
and after a cooling period has elapsed, reapplying the power to the storage drive. (¶111 teaches the power is kept off until it is necessary to turn the power back on to reduce the frequency of latch-up events.)
Kon does not explicitly teach
a radiation-hardened storage controller
Halderman teaches/suggests in ¶37 and fig. 2A-2C that only portions of a system can be selected to be radiation hardened and then used to monitor and control other non-radiation hardened portions of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been able to modify the system of Kon with the teachings/suggestions of Halderman such that control unit of Kon could have been hardened against radiation. The motivation for this modification is that the control unit could have been hardened against radiation using known techniques and achieved predictable results. Furthermore, it would have improved the reliability of the system, while keep costs down, as only a portion of the data record would have needed to undergo physical radiation hardening.
In regards to claim 11, Kon further teaches
wherein the storage drive is part of a storage array of the data storage system. (fig. 1, storage unit 3). Kon only teaches a single storage unit (drive) and not an array, however the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected results is produced (See MPEP §2144.04 VI. B.). In this case, one could duplicate this part and the results of which would be predictable.
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Kon further teaches
wherein the latch up is due to radiation affecting the storage drive. (¶50 latch-up events are caused by radiation)
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Kon further teaches
wherein the storage drive comprises a drive controller, a storage media, and a random access memory, the current draw of the storage drive comprises current drawn by one or more of the drive controller, the storage media, and the random access memory. (fig. 9 and ¶38-39 teaches storage unit (drive) comprises a transmission reception unit (i.e. drive controller) for reading/writing the non-volatile memory 32 (storage media) which can be MRAM (random access memory. ¶114-115 current level of the NVM is monitored)
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kon (US 2023/0289257) in view of Halderman (US 2022/0171694) and Barbara (US 8,472,276).
In regards to claims 4 and 14, Kon and Halderman may not explicitly teach
via the radiation-hardened storage controller, repeatedly removing the power from the storage drive to mediate latch up conditions even if the latch up is not detected, the power being reapplied after the cooling period has elapsed.
Barbara teaches C3:12-47 that a control pulse (reduction in supplied power, i.e. power off) can be sent at regularly scheduled intervals instead of at the detection of a latch-up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kon and Halderman to include to the teachings of Barbara such that the power could be cycled regularly. The motivation for such is that this periodic cycling can prevent the latch-up conditions which, which in turn prevents the latch-up condition from drawing unnecessary power and/or causing damage or degradation to the system components.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Barbara further teaches and/or makes obvious
wherein the repeated removal and reapplication of the power is limited by one or both of a floor function and a ceiling function to ensure respective one or both minimum and maximum times between restarts. (C3:30-43 teaches that a control pulse (reduction in supplied power, i.e. power off) can be sent at regularly scheduled intervals instead of at the detection of a latch-up, and the schedule can be derived from the current space or terrestrial environment and detected latch-up events, such as to determine the theoretical maximum frequency.)
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kon (US 2023/0289257) in view of Halderman (US 2022/0171694) and Geist (US 12,197,373).
In regards to claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 Kon and Halderman may not explicitly teach
via a dedicated watchdog monitor hardware device, receiving heartbeat signals from the storage drive to detect a component hang. Powering and clocking the watchdog monitor hardware device independently of a microprocessor of the radiation-hardened storage controller.
Geist C7:46-67 teaches that multiple independent watch dog timers/circuits can be used to determine if a device is frozen or malfunctioning by periodically pulsing a signal referred to a “heartbeat”. The “heartbeat” can be outputted to an other device (controller) in order to perform a desired remedial function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kon and Halderman to have incorporate the teachings of Geist in order to include a watchdog monitor for the storage device to send a heartbeat signal to the storage controller. The motivation for such a modification is that it would allowed the controller to know if the storage device had hung and/or malfunctioned and that some remedial action needed to be taken to restore functionality (i.e. such as a reset). The inclusion of a watchdog timer circuit would have been trivial to one of ordinary skill in the art and predictable results could have been achieved.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kon (US 2023/0289257) in view of Halderman (US 2022/0171694) and Vail (US 2017/0033554).
In regards to claims 8 and 18, Kon and Halderman may not explicitly teach
wherein determining that the latch up is detected comprises using a Kalman filter that factors a current workload and temperature of the storage drive to detect the latch up.
Vail ¶49-51 and figs. 2 and 3 teaches that temperature and operating mode (i.e. current workload) and any other information can be taken into account along with how the current changes over time (i.e. Kalman filter) to distinguish between standard operational surges vs. a SEL (latch-up) surge)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified they system of Kon and Halderman to incorporate the teachings of Vail such that latch-up notifications could take into account the current operating and temperature conditions (among other possible conditions). This improves the system by more accurately detecting latch-up conditions and prevent false alarms from current spikes causes by normal operating conditions.
In regards to claims 9 and 19, Kon and Halderman may not explicitly teach
wherein determining that the latch up is detected comprises using a machine-learning algorithm that factors a current workload and temperature of the storage drive to detect the latch up.
Vail ¶49-51 and 56 and figs. 2 and 3 teaches that temperature and operating mode (i.e. current workload) and any other information can be taken into account along with how the current changes over time and this training data can be collected and used to distinguish between standard operational surges vs. a SEL (latch-up) surge)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified they system of Kon and Halderman to incorporate the teachings of Vail such that latch-up notifications could take into account the current operating and temperature conditions (among other possible conditions) with a trained algorithm. This improves the system by more accurately detecting latch-up conditions and prevent false alarms from current spikes causes by normal operating conditions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON W BLUST whose telephone number is (571)272-6302. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON W BLUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights